諸經要集 10.60

10.60

Furthermore, the *Upāsakaśīla-sūtra* states: The Buddha said, 'If a person has wealth and, seeing someone seeking it, says he has nothing and refuses him, one should know that this person has already spoken of poverty and slight merit in future lives. Such a person is termed heedless. That he says he has no wealth is not correct. Why? Water and grass are things that no human lacks. Though someone is the ruler of a state, he may not necessarily be able to give; though someone is poor, he is not unable to give. Why? A poor person also has his portion of food. After eating, he washes the vessel and discards the rinse-water; if he gives it to those who should eat it, he also obtains merit. If with a dust-mote of flour he gives it to ants, he also obtains boundless fruits of merit. In all the world, who among the utterly destitute lacks a dust-mote of flour like this? Who is there that could survive a single day without eating three balls of flour? Therefore, all people should give half their food to beggars. Good sons, who among the destitute is stark naked without clothing? If one has clothing, could one not spare a single thread to give to someone to bind a wound, or material the size of a finger to make a lamp-wick? Who among the people of the world is so poor as to have no body? If one has a body and sees another performing merit, one should go in person to assist, joyfully and without weariness. He too is called a donor and also obtains merit. At times he receives a share, at times he receives an equal amount, and at times he even excels. For this reason, when I received the meal offered by King Prasenajit, I also pronounced the blessing: the merit obtained by the king and by the poor person was equal and without distinction. Just as when a person buys incense—whether paste incense, powdered incense, loose incense, or burned incense, these four kinds of incense—if one touches it, buys it, or weighs it, the gift is equal and no different, and the various incenses do not lose a single hair's breadth. The practice of cultivating giving is also like this: whether much or little, coarse or fine; whether one rejoices with sympathetic joy and goes in person to assist, or from afar sees and hears it and gives rise to joy—because their minds are equal, the fruits obtained are without distinction. If one lacks wealth and, seeing another give, one's mind does not rejoice or believe, but doubts the field of merit, this is called poverty. If one has much wealth and is free and unimpeded, and there is an excellent field of merit, but internally one lacks faithful devotion and cannot make an offering, this too is called poverty. Therefore, the wise person observes for himself: even if there remains but a single ball of food, such that eating it himself means life and giving it away means death, he should still give it—how much more so when there is plenty! The wise person further observes: in this world, even if one maintains the precepts and has vast learning, or even attains the fruit of an arhat, he still cannot ward off hunger and thirst, and the like. His lack of room, clothing, food and drink, bedding, and medicine for illness are all due to the conditions of not having given in past lives. If a person who breaks the precepts takes delight in practicing giving, though he falls among hungry ghosts or animals, he will always be full and sated, lacking nothing. Though one should possess the wealth of heaven and earth and enjoy boundless pleasure, one is still not satisfied. Therefore, I should practice giving for the sake of unsurpassable joy, and not for the sake of humans or gods. Why? Because they are impermanent, because they are limited.'